Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
Hello Roberto, well there's some progress in providing a XHTML and CSS compliant web GUI (at least in CVS HEAD). On the other hand cleaning up all the various PHP files to make them XHTML/CSS compliant is a somehow time intensive and pesky effort. So maybe sponsoring some of the devs would speed up the process :) WAI is another story. For example I would like to know whether the Ajax technology hinders the implementation of the WAI principles... Roberto Gordo Saez schrieb: I've been reading silently this thread until now. Well, I don't want to contribute to flames, so please consider my opinions just as humble wishes. In case you are curious, I'm using pfSense on my company. We have just started to make pfSense installations to our own clients. Speaking for myself, I also like m0n0wall theme far more than pfSense's one, but the theme I would really prefer is a clean, XHTML CSS validated theme, and it would be very valuable for us at least WAI-AA conformance on the user interface. Yes, I know making a theme like this does take a great deal of work and time; I would prefer to have less features and WAI-AA conformance, but I think this is not the common feeling, so I don't have too much hope for my wishes ;-) !DSPAM:44a90c5499959984019006! -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kind regards DAn.I.El S. Haischt Spammers, please please send any mail to: Daniel S. Haischt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Want a complete signature??? Type at a shell prompt: $ finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
So maybe sponsoring some of the devs would speed up the process :) WAI is another story. For example I would like to know whether the Ajax technology hinders the implementation of the WAI principles... Given pfsense's target market being realistic and politically incorrect, the true 'need' for double A WAI conformance would be rather low on any priority list. Not saying that they don't exist, but as with seriously visually impaired lollipop men/crossing guards, security admins with a similar handicap are rather thin on the ground. Those who would blindly (pun intended) reject a highly specialised niche product on the basis of non WAI compliance, should be looking for employment elsewhere. Greg
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 7/3/06, Greg Hennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given pfsense's target market being realistic and politically incorrect, the true 'need' for double A WAI conformance would be rather low on any priority list. Ok, I was supposing that. Not saying that they don't exist, but as with seriously visually impaired lollipop men/crossing guards, security admins with a similar handicap are rather thin on the ground. Those who would blindly (pun intended) reject a highly specialised niche product on the basis of non WAI compliance, should be looking for employment elsewhere. :-) IMHO, I think WAI web pages can be also useful for people without impairments... Also, I've found that sometimes it is mandatory to use accessible software on government or public founded organizations (at least on the part of the world that I live on). I always see as a good idea to have some conformance with WAI, but I agree with you in that it does not appear to be a common wanted feature. Anyway, knowing that XHTML and CSS are planned in CVS HEAD is good news for me. I'm happy with this.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
Roberto Gordo Saez schrieb: Anyway, knowing that XHTML and CSS are planned in CVS HEAD is good news for me. I'm happy with this. It's not planned its has been there from the beginnings. It's just that for example img / tags etc. are not closed as required by the XHTML spec. So donating some money would speed up the process, because its realy cumbersome to go through all of the PHP pages to fix various HTML errors with even knowing that most browsers do simply ignore those errors. There are simply more pressing issues which need to be solved first. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kind regards DAn.I.El S. Haischt Spammers, please please send any mail to: Daniel S. Haischt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Want a complete signature??? Type at a shell prompt: $ finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to move back to default m0n0wall design and artwork. It is much superior in look and usability, imo. I would go so far to file this as a bug. That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll have the ugly old look back. --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest to move back to default m0n0wall design and artwork. System - Theme - pfSense It is much superior in look and usability, imo. I would go so far to file this as a bug. Get real. Thats the silliest thing I have heard all week.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll have the ugly old look back. It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a slap in the face to Holger, one of the people that have helped this project more than anyone else (even me). An apology is in order otherwise I will be deleting any ticket that I ever see with your email address attached. You should be ashamed of yourself. Scott
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote: That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll No trolling intended. I do really consider the current pfsense artwork a major regression on m0n0wall look and feel. have the ugly old look back. No, the icons and the color scheme are still different. For instance, the firewall rules buttons are absurdly overwrought. It would be a major improvement to get the m0n0 default ones back. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bugs are not classified by clown noses. Bugs are classified by what users think are bugs. I can live with the current optics, but rest assured: if you think the current theme is superior, by objective criteria it's not (how about a poll?). Again, no flamage intended. It's a great piece of software otherwise (there was a reason I switched from m0n0, you know). If you like the theme that much then take the time to port it back and submit it. Otherwise your voice is not going to be very loud. We really like the way the theme is now. Scott
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
Am 21.06.2006 um 21:18 schrieb Scott Ullrich: On 6/21/06, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll have the ugly old look back. It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a slap in the face to Holger, one of the people that have helped this project more than anyone else (even me). An apology is in order otherwise I will be deleting any ticket that I ever see with your email address attached. I wouldn't go so far - this is really a question of taste. It's his opinion. OTOH, I can't imagine making the above (=thread-opening) statement myself - but I never used m0n0wall myself, either. This is an OSS-project, for which 95% of all conflicts (and 100% of the this looks...it should look like-conflicts) should be endable with a simple Either put up or shut up cheers, Rainer
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 03:18:45PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote: It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a No flamage intended. I was just speaking my honest, frank opinion. slap in the face to Holger, one of the people that have helped this project more than anyone else (even me). I'm sorry, a bug is not a slap in the face. If you think it is, that's not a professional attitude to take. An UI is actually the hardest thing to get right, so no reason to get hot under the collar after a bit of feedback. An apology is in order otherwise I will be deleting any ticket that I ever see with your email address attached. You should be ashamed of yourself. Great Scott! I can't believe I'm reading this. Threats and intimidation now, is it? That's a firin' offense in proprietary software circles, and for a reason. If you think I'm ever going to submit any ticket or recommend pfsense to anybody (I admit of having been guilty of this in the past) you're out of your fucking mind. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think I'm ever going to submit any ticket or recommend pfsense to anybody (I admit of having been guilty of this in the past) you're out of your fucking mind. Do us all a favor and just go away. Thanks.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:32:05PM +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote: I wouldn't go so far - this is really a question of taste. It's his opinion. Actually, usability is an objective criterion, not just taste. OTOH, I can't imagine making the above (=thread-opening) statement myself - but I never used m0n0wall myself, either. You see, unlike you I've been using both. pfSense wins hands down technology-wise. Design-wise, less so. This is an OSS-project, for which 95% of all conflicts (and 100% of the this looks...it should look like-conflicts) should be endable with a simple Either put up or shut up Sorry, my FLOSS universe works different from yours. If I was a *BSD person and had the time I wouldn't have even brought it up. And with this, I'm out of this thread. (What *is* it with *BSD people?) -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, my FLOSS universe works different from yours. If I was a *BSD person and had the time I wouldn't have even brought it up. And with this, I'm out of this thread. (What *is* it with *BSD people?) More inflamatory comments. You really are a piece of work. Scott
RE: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And with this, I'm out of this thread. (What *is* it with *BSD people?) Simple - They don't take shit from anyone. Eugen - feel free to just use m0n0wall... m0n0wall is great at what m0n0wall does. And m0n0wall users get the default m0n0wall theme with your m0n0wall box for a full m0n0wall experience.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote: That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll No trolling intended. I do really consider the current pfsense artwork a major regression on m0n0wall look and feel. have the ugly old look back. No, the icons and the color scheme are still different. For instance, the firewall rules buttons are absurdly overwrought. It would be a major improvement to get the m0n0 default ones back. pfSense != m0n0wall. We're a fork. We may have regressed on a theme that is no longer our default. We certainly welcome patches - cascading style sheets can be a real pain to get right. And honestly, we spend a LOT of time writing themeable code (I'm constantly fixing items with hard-coded paths) - it's certainly easier to write non-themeable code which would result in the old pfSense theme disappearing. With that said alot of the color scheme is still in code I believe which will make it difficult to make a non-red theme. --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
Mr. Leitl, I don't quite understand your problem here. You claim that the m0n0 interface has better usability, and is superior in look, however, you do not support these claims with any useful examples that would allow the pfSense team to improve their interface. pfSense is not m0n0; it has more features, packages, and the like, and therefore needs a different interface to accomodate these differences. I've done web design before, and as far as I can see, I cannot think of a way to improve the pfSense interface. Perhaps your browser sucks and cannot display the menus properly? (I've had that problem before) Your statement that your claims are a bug report is a lie. Any useful bug report contains information that would be helpful to the developers; yours contains only incendiary comments. Learn how to code and port the m0n0 interface over to pfSense, or better yet, learn how to be respectful over the internet. The people who develop pfSense have other things to do than develop pfSense. We'd all be S.O.L. if it weren't for them. (Care to learn OpenBSD and write your own pf filter rules at console? Neither do I.) Good day sir A.C. R.
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
I'm sure I will be criticized for being old fashioned or something but I was under the impression that we could have discussions on this list without being so strong with our language. I realize that it is probably prevalent in all our lives but I don't see where the need presents itself to use it here. If you are frustrated with something I suggest the #*$*@ approach. We all know what you mean and it's kid-friendly :-) If anyone is still reading this and cares my opinion I believe that both Eugen and Scott made some mistakes in this. Eugen should have obviously chosen his words more carefully as it was basically walking into someone's house and slamming everything they had worked on. It just doesn't sit well with people, including myself. If he didn't like the interface he should have simply stated that and also provided his reasoning in a little more diplomatic and specific way. A bug in my thinking is when something has a flaw or a kink in the workings that should be fixed. To say this about a whole interface that someone worked on is, like Bill said, very inflammatory and Eugen should have been more tactful and mature in this. And although I can understand the rush to battle stations on a comment like that, Scott, you should have slightly less mean and just left it with an apology is in order. If he filed a bug report about it, mark it as low priority and say we have plenty of other things to do. Someone told me once that if your nice to someone usually that one person knows, if your mean to someone then they tell 10 people. I enjoy this project very much and, although its very very small I'm glad that a suggestion that I made was placed in the project (startup/shutdown beeps). I don't want it to get a wrongly earned reputation that we are a bunch of stuck up geeks that some projects have. Please forgive me if you disagree, I mean no harm. :-) I love the interface and I tried m0n0wall for about 6 months before I found PFsense. As long as the interface is functional and I learn where and how to do and use it, I'm happy... and I'm happy with this one. Let's move on now people.COME ON, BIG GROUP HUG!!! ...lol Jonathan
RE: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
Hi All, PFSense TEAM I am more than happy with the GUI that you use, after configuring some Cisco routers, a GUI is a luxury, no matter what it looked like (though I am satisfied with the colour scheme, its PFSense nothing else). The point of PFSense has been left out a bit, it’s a Firewall. Once it's configured, it might only be viewed for about 10 minutes a week perhaps, or even only once a month. It's not like the colour scheme is a high priority. I'd rather have a horrid looking FW that worked, than have something that made you feel warm and fuzzy that didn’t work. GREAT WORK GUYS, Keep it up. P.S. Don’t get worked up by negative feedback, it's NON-PRODUCTIVE. Just think about all the others who are grateful for your efforts. BRAVO. Kindest Regards, Craig Roy Horizon IT Consultants -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date: 21/06/2006
Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork
The point of PFSense has been left out a bit, it’s a Firewall. Once it's configured, it might only be viewed for about 10 minutes a week perhaps, or even only once a month. It's not like the colour scheme is a high priority. EXACTLY! I'm sure there are some who use it much more but for most of us that's all we'll use it. I for one started using PFsense because I had GREAT success with it. Not because it's pretty. :-) Jonathan P.S. -- I do think it's pretty btw..lol. Craig Roy wrote: Hi All, PFSense TEAM I am more than happy with the GUI that you use, after configuring some Cisco routers, a GUI is a luxury, no matter what it looked like (though I am satisfied with the colour scheme, its PFSense nothing else). The point of PFSense has been left out a bit, it’s a Firewall. Once it's configured, it might only be viewed for about 10 minutes a week perhaps, or even only once a month. It's not like the colour scheme is a high priority. I'd rather have a horrid looking FW that worked, than have something that made you feel warm and fuzzy that didn’t work. GREAT WORK GUYS, Keep it up. P.S. Don’t get worked up by negative feedback, it's NON-PRODUCTIVE. Just think about all the others who are grateful for your efforts. BRAVO. Kindest Regards, Craig Roy Horizon IT Consultants
